FDA Failings?

[Petrodus]

There is an interesting discussion started by Petrodus in the Campaigning forum that would be of great interest to the OP and everyone. There is a link "click here" to an interview on George Noory's radio show with an attorney, Jonathan W. Emord who has successfully sued the FDA 7 times. If anyone knows why the FDA does what it does, he knows and he's telling all of us. It's an incredible eye-opener.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/campaigning-discussions/135770-fda-truth-sticky.html

We all surf ECF various forums looking for information and interesting topics of discussion. When viewing a thread discussing the FDA and there are those questioning or wondering why the FDA or our government (fill in the blank)... I would suggest posting a similar reply.

Not for the purpose of "bumping" the thread, but for the purpose of bumping the "Truth". If the membership would take the time to listen to the Entire interview...it would save countless hours posting and replying on subjects well documented in an archived interview on another thread.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/campaigning-discussions/135770-fda-truth-sticky.html

The interview is more important than the thread. I would vote the Interview be archived as a "Sticky". Would be of benefit to new members and a good "Reference" in discussions.

 

[Sainted_S]

Well, there is actually a limit on the comments that can be made about the FDA due to libel laws; but the whole idea that government acts in the public interest is severely flawed at best - anyone who has been involved in the battle to have e-cigs legalized knows very well that such a perception is naive in the extreme.

I'm sorry, but I take offense at this statement. The FDA is not a private citizen and they are not subject to the same protections because it is a government agency. Despite the passage of the Homeland Security Act, I would like to think we still have the rights to question and criticize agencies of the federal government when they encroach upon our freedoms.

Though I feel the FDA is exerting power beyond what has been granted to them, I feel as a society we must look closer into the legislation that is passed by our elected representatives. The power that the FDA does have has been granted by the government and the pharmaceutical lobbyist have replaced the American voters as the voice of our country. One example is the unsuccessful attempt by vaccination companies to have an item slipped into the Homeland Security Act that would have made vaccinations mandatory while at the same time removing any legal recourse for victims of death and injury resulting from vaccinations. Due to public outcry these provisions were removed from the bill, however, that they were there at all shows the powers "behind the scenes" that drives our "republic."

 

[Petrodus]

Due to public outcry these provisions were removed from the bill, however, that they were there at all shows the powers "behind the scenes" that drives our "republic."

Truth about our government is a bitter pill for many to swallow.

In the interview (previously mentioned)...Attorney Jonathan Emord argues that the United States has been transformed from a constitutional republic into a bureaucratic oligarchy.

 

[Petrodus]

Well, there is actually a limit on the comments........

Your thesis level (tongue in cheek) summary... Priceless !!!

KUDOS

 

[DaveP]

The defacto analysis of the FDA's actions points to a conflict between a government agency and the political pressures of corporate profit and lobbying power. Taxes paid coupled with the option of offshore operation give the large corporations the power to bargain with government agencies.

I agree that there are many drugs approved that provide questionable benefits compared to risks. In the case of Ecigs, the minimal testing that has been performed points to relative safety as compared to combustible tobacco products, yet the FDA chooses to side with Big Tobacco rather than a solution such as electronic cigarettes. Ecigs could prove to be a stepping stone to eliminate tobacco from citizens' lives yet the loss in billions each year in tax payments limits the reach of the FDA against Big Tobacco and hampers their ability to approve Ecigs as an alternative. The testing by the FDA earlier this year found trace elements of a carcinogen in one electronic cigarette eliquid sample tested that resulted in rejection of a positive result. On the other hand, the 4000 chemicals and numerous high level carcinogens in tobacco remain legal, partly due to an agreement of payments by the tobacco companies toward advertising that discourages use of tobacco by minors.

All this information is widely known and accepted and available in print and electronic versions, yet Ecigs continue to be discriminated against in a protectionist stance for an industry that can afford lobbyists.

These statements are not necessarily my beliefs entirely, but a conversational synopsis of information obtained from widely available articles and results previously published in various print and electronic texts.

 

[Petrodus]

All this information is widely known and accepted and available in print and electronic versions, yet Ecigs continue to be discriminated against in a protectionist stance for an industry that can afford lobbyists.

Arthur Schopenhauer once said, “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

I think we are now approaching the third stage.

 

[Dillinger]

Wow, thank you all so much for contributing to this thread.

Sorry I've been too busy with other class assignments to respond, but I've caught up and read all the responses. All your comments and links are much appreciated!

Your thesis level (tongue in cheek) summary... Priceless !!!

I know you are referring to Rolygate's post, but this reminded me of the title for my paper:

"Pack of Cigarettes: $11.30 Cheeseburger: $17.89 Regulations: Not Priceless"

I'm not really writing about the outrageous prices of analogs though, it's aim is to be a sort of catchy intro. It starts by saying something like, "Everyone knows a “sin-tax” is supposed to discourage us from buying what’s “bad for us.” But other than the obvious drawback that if you partake in these goods, your wallet suffers, there are certain hidden costs that can come with the benefits of regulation. By comparing the potential regulation of personal vaporizers (PVs) or electronic cigarettes and certain historical aspects of food regulation, the drawbacks of regulation can be exposed and more carefully considered."

Anyways, thank you again all. Discussion continue!

EDIT:: I just want to add that that interview of Attorney Jonathan Emord is a gold mine of quotes which back up my argument tremendously. Thank you so much for passing this along.